[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 35 (Monday, March 3, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1446-S1451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION PROCESS

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to 
comment about the serious problem in the judicial confirmation process 
where Federal judges are pawns in political partisanship. I wrote to my 
distinguished colleague Senator Leahy on February

[[Page S1447]]

29, last Friday. I sent him an extensive letter on the subject.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record 
the full text of that letter at the conclusion of my comments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, during the past 20 years, we have seen a 
very serious deterioration in the processes in the Senate on the 
confirmation of Federal judges. Without a broad sweep of historical 
reference, I believe it has been a very low point in the confirmation 
of Federal judges since the beginning of the Republic, but in order to 
say that with absolute certainty, there would have to be a very intense 
historical survey undertaken.
  It is plain that since the last 2 years of President Reagan's 
administration until the present day, the confirmation process has 
broken down whenever the White House has been controlled by one party 
and the Senate controlled by the other party. In the last 2 years of 
the Reagan administration, the judicial confirmation process broke 
down. In the 4 years of the administration of President George H. W. 
Bush, the confirmation process was riveted with partisanship. When 
Republicans gained control of the Senate starting in January of 1995, 
during the last 6 years of the administration of President Clinton, the 
Republican Senate retaliated, and more than retaliated; it exacerbated 
the problem. Then, when the administration of President George W. Bush 
came, the Democrats were in control for about a year and a half of that 
process. Again, the process was stymied. Then it got even worse. Then, 
even though the Republicans had gained control of the Senate, after the 
2002 elections, there were filibusters, which were very destructive to 
the Senate. Then, there was a very serious challenge to the filibuster 
rule. The Democrats were filibustering President Bush's nominees and 
Republicans responded with a so-called constitutional or nuclear option 
to change the filibuster rule to reduce the number from 60 to 51.

  During the course of these battles, with one side raising the ante 
and the other side raising the ante, exacerbating the controversy, I 
was willing to cross party lines and support the nominees of President 
Clinton who were qualified. For example, I crossed party lines to 
support Judge Marsha Berzon who was confirmed to the Ninth Circuit on 
March 9, 2000, and Judge Timothy Dyk who was confirmed to the Federal 
Circuit on May 24, 2000. I supported Judge Richard Paez who was 
confirmed to the Ninth Circuit on March 9, 2000, and Judge H. Lee 
Sarokin who was confirmed to the Third Circuit on October 4, 1994. 
Similarly, I supported President Clinton's nomination of Judge Gerard 
Lynch who was confirmed to the District Court for the Southern District 
of New York on May 24, 2000.
  I also supported other controversial, nonjudicial confirmations such 
as Lani Guinier to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights 
Division of the Justice Department and the subsequent nomination of 
Bill Lann Lee for the same position. I was willing to cross party lines 
and support the nominees of the Democratic President. Now, I believe 
the Republican caucus is correct. In order to determine which caucus is 
to prevail, I believe the American people are going to have to be 
informed as to what is going on. It is a picture, which I submit 
requires correction.
  Comparing the statistics on the confirmation of President Clinton's 
nominees versus President Bush's nominees shows a significant 
disparity. In the last 2 years of President Clinton's term, President 
Clinton was successful in confirming 15 circuit nominees and 57 
district court nominees, while President Bush has been successful in 
confirming only 6 circuit court nominees and 34 district court 
nominees.
  Looking at the total of 8 years, there is, again, a great disparity. 
In President Clinton's 8 years, 65 circuit judges were confirmed and 
305 district judges. During the full two terms up to the present time 
with President Bush, 57 circuit judges have been confirmed and 237 
district court judges have been confirmed.
  It is not just a matter of statistics, it is a matter of very 
substantial impact on the public, a very substantial impact on the 
courts, and a matter of very significant unfairness to the nominees 
themselves.
  It is impossible with any other statistical analysis to draw any firm 
conclusions because the years overlap. Senator Leahy and I have already 
exchanged extensive, candidly argumentative correspondence, and he has 
made some points, but a close analysis shows that is not the case. When 
he cites the confirmations in the year 2007, for example, his figures 
look good because 13 of the judges were held over from the preceding 
109th Congress. So, if those 13 are extracted, it is not the kind of a 
picture that would show the statistical battle as tilting in his favor. 
But, I believe it goes much further than the statistics. It goes to 
what is happening day in and day out in the Federal courts.
  There recently was extended publicity given to the Exxon Valdez case. 
The situation first arose in 1989 when 11 million gallons of crude oil 
were spilled in Alaska. The district court acted on the matter in 1994. 
The case is just now coming to the Supreme Court of the United States, 
which heard argument last week. In the interim, some 8,000 plaintiffs 
have died.
  In the text of the letter which I have sent to Senator Leahy and 
which will be included in the Congressional Record, there are the 
designations of areas where there are judicial emergencies. ``Judicial 
emergencies'' means that there is an insufficient number of judges to 
handle the backlog of cases in the courts. That means the people who 
have gone to court to sue for damages in a personal injury case or to 
sue for defective automobiles or to sue for negligently formulated 
medicines are delayed. The adage is well established in our lexicon 
that justice delayed is justice denied. I shall not elaborate in the 
limited amount of time I have on the many circuits and district courts 
where they face judicial emergencies because well-qualified judges have 
not been confirmed. Here again, I can mention only a few. But one 
nominee, Peter Keisler, whose nomination to the District of Columbia 
Circuit Court has been pending in Committee for more than 20 months, is 
a man who graduated magna cum laude from Yale, then graduated from Yale 
Law School, and was editor of the Yale Law Journal. Editorials in the 
Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post have called for confirmation 
of Mr. Keisler, calling him a ``moderate conservative'' and a ``highly 
qualified nominee'' who ``certainly warrants confirmation.''

  Robert Conrad, nominated to the Fourth Circuit, is nominated to fill 
a judicial emergency and has been pending over 220 days. He is rated 
unanimously well qualified and graduated magna cum laude from Clemson 
University. An editorial in the Charlotte Observer stated it is 
``outrageous'' that the Judiciary Committee has not held a hearing on 
Judge Conrad, calling him a ``well-qualified judge who only 3 years ago 
received unanimous Senate confirmation,'' and who ``was appointed by 
Democratic Attorney General Janet Reno to head the Justice Department's 
Campaign Task Force.'' He is a former prosecutor and distinguished 
district court judge who was picked by the Attorney General of the 
opposite party to head a very important campaign finance task force.
  Nominee Rod Rosenstein for the Fourth Circuit has been pending for 
over 100 days. The American Bar Association rated him unanimously well 
qualified. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, summa cum 
laude and Harvard Law School, cum laude. Two editorials in The 
Washington Post urged Senate confirmation of Mr. Rosenstein, and one 
stated:

       ``Blocking Mr. Rosenstein's confirmation hearing would 
     elevate ideology and ego above substance and merit, and it 
     would unfairly penalize a man who people on both sides of 
     this question agree is well qualified for a judgeship.''

  I think that statement by The Washington Post is as good a 
characterization as you can find. The conduct of the Senate today is 
elevating ideology and ego above substance. So I would urge my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to extend their hands across 
the aisle, as I did on so many occasions during President Clinton's 
tenure in office. How much time remains, Mr. President?

[[Page S1448]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 8 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Eight minutes?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 7 minutes 58 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. The current presidential race 
provides the Senate with a unique opportunity to come to grips with the 
confirmation process of Federal judges and to make some very 
fundamental commitments and very fundamental changes to our process.
  We are in the midst of a Presidential campaign, and I think it is 
fair to say the outcome is uncertain. It has fluctuated tremendously on 
both nomination pictures. But, this is a time, with the outcome 
uncertain, when neither side of the aisle would know who will gain an 
advantage; we would not know whose ox was being gored. It is a time, 
starting in the next Congress--if we can't act now, and my fundamental 
plea is that we act at the present time--we ought not to wait 11 
months, until January 20, 2009. This is a unique time to tackle the 
problem for the future.
  On April 1, 2004, I offered S. Res. 327, and I now offer the 
substance of that resolution again. The whereas clauses of the 
resolution recited a distressing array of facts similar to what we have 
at the present time, with filibusters by the Democrats and with the 
retaliatory prospect of changing the filibuster rule. The resolution 
called for establishing a timetable for hearings of nominees for 
district courts and courts of appeal and the Supreme Court to occur 
within 30 days after the names of such nominees have been submitted to 
the Senate by the President and then to establish a timetable for 
action by the full committee within 30 days after the hearings and for 
reporting out nominees to the full Senate. And then to have a timetable 
for the full Senate to act within 90 days, with a provision for 
reasonable extension of times, upon agreement of the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee and the ranking member or the majority leader and 
the minority leader to extend the time.
  This resolution would establish procedures which would guarantee that 
the confirmation of judges would go back to the good old days, where 
you took a look at the person's academic credentials, you took a look 
at the person's professional background, you interviewed the 
individual, you had an FBI background check, and the person didn't have 
to pass some ideological purity test. Or, the individual did not have 
to pass a test such as what Judge Southwick was subjected to on this 
floor for months and months and months.
  It was particularly egregious in the case of Judge Southwick. Judge 
Southwick was a distinguished Mississippi State appellate court judge. 
He was nominated for the Fifth Circuit, and he had an extraordinary 
record, more than 10 years on the State court bench--more than 70 
opinions. Objections were raised to two lines in two concurring 
opinions. Judge Southwick left the bench and went to Iraq and served 
for months in the Judge Advocate General's Corps. He was interviewed by 
many people of the Senate, and his confirmation hung on a thread until 
a courageous Senator from the other side of the aisle crossed party 
lines and led the way to get a few votes from the Democrats.
  You don't have to be a profile in courage to support a judge such as 
Judge Southwick, and you don't have to be a profile in courage to 
support a nominee such as Rod Rosenstein or Peter Keisler or Robert 
Conrad or the others who were enumerated in my letter--some 10 circuit 
court judges and 18 district court judges.
  I wish to quote a very respectable authority in my concluding 
comment. A man who has served in the Senate since he was elected from 
Vermont in 1974, twice chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and this is 
what the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, had to say 
on October 5, 2000.

       This year, the Judiciary Committee reported only three 
     nominees to the Court of Appeals all year.

  This is the last year of President Clinton's administration.

       We denied a committee vote to two outstanding nominees who 
     succeeded in getting hearings. I hope we can look again and 
     ask ourselves objectively, without any partisanship: Can we 
     not do better on judges?

  This is Senator Leahy. Going on.

       I quoted Governor George Bush--

  He was in the campaign process at that time in the 2000 election. 
Senator Leahy says:

       I quoted Governor George Bush on the floor a couple of days 
     ago. I said I agreed with him. On nominations he said we 
     should vote them up or down within 60 days. If you don't want 
     the person, vote against them. The Republican Party should 
     have no fear of that. They have the majority in this body. 
     They could vote against them if they want, but have the vote. 
     Either vote for them or vote against them. Don't leave people 
     such as Helene White and Bonnie Campbell, people such as 
     this, just hanging forever without even getting a rollcall 
     vote. That is wrong. It is not a responsible way and 
     besmirches the Senate, this body, that I love so much.

  Senator Leahy, you were right on October 5, 2000, and you are right 
on March 3, 2008.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                               Washington, DC,

                                                February 29, 2008.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Patrick: I write in the hope that you and I can work 
     out an accommodation on the confirmation of federal judges 
     without our respective caucuses coming to an impasse. Without 
     going into an elaborate history on the confirmation of 
     federal judges, the essence of the situation is that 15 
     circuit judges and 57 district court judges were confirmed in 
     the last two years of President Clinton's Administration, 
     compared to 6 circuit court and 34 district court judges for 
     President Bush in 2007-2008. That means there must be 
     confirmations or at least up-or-down votes on 9 additional 
     circuit and 23 district court judges to equal President 
     Clinton's record.
       President Bush is even farther behind President Clinton in 
     total confirmations when contrasting their entire terms, 
     since President Clinton confirmed 65 circuit court and 305 
     district court judges while President Bush has so far 
     confirmed only 57 circuit and 237 district court judges. In 
     addition, thus far in the 110th Congress, only 5 of President 
     Bush's circuit court nominees have been granted hearings. By 
     this date in President Clinton's final two years in office, 
     the Committee had held hearings for 10 circuit court 
     nominees. Until the hearing for Ms. Catharina Haynes on 
     February 21, 2008, we had not had a circuit court hearing 
     since September 25, 2007, some 5 months ago.
       While there have been many hotly contested issues in the 
     Senate in recent years, the most bitter controversies have 
     involved federal judicial nominations. In 2005, the battle 
     over judges reached a high point, or low point, with the 
     Republican caucus threatening to employ the ``nuclear 
     option'' to combat the Democrats' filibusters. In my 
     judgment, in the past twenty years, there has been a great 
     deal of blame split evenly between both sides.
       As the record shows, I dissented from the Republican 
     caucus's position by casting key votes in favor of several 
     circuit court nominees, including controversial nominees such 
     as Judge Marsha Berzon, who was confirmed to the Ninth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals on March 9, 2000, Judge Timothy Dyk, 
     who was confirmed to the Federal Circuit on May 24, 2000, 
     Judge Richard Paez, who was confirmed to the Ninth Circuit on 
     March 9, 2000, and Judge H. Lee Sarokin, who was confirmed to 
     the Third Circuit on October 4, 1994. Similarly, I supported 
     President Clinton's nomination of Judge Gerard Lynch, who was 
     confirmed to the District Court for the Southern District of 
     New York by a vote of 63-36 on May 24, 2000. I also supported 
     other controversial non-judicial confirmations such as Lani 
     Guinier to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights 
     Division of the justice Department and the subsequent 
     nomination of Bill Lann Lee for the same position.
       Now I believe that my caucus is correct in insisting on up-
     or-down votes on nominees with extraordinary records, 
     including several who are nominated to fill seats deemed 
     judicial emergencies. A listing of these nominees with their 
     superb qualifications proves the point:


                         Circuit Court Nominees

       Nominee: Peter D. Keisler, of MD, to the D.C. Circuit: 
     Pending over 600 days.
       Nominated: June 29, 2006 Hearing August 1, 2006; 
     Renominated January 8, 2007.
       ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified.
       Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Yale University, 1981; 
     J.D., Yale Law School, 1985; Notes/Comments Editor, Yale Law 
     Journal.
       Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge Robert H. Bork, D.C. 
     Circuit Court of Appeals; Law Clerk, Justice Anthony M. 
     Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court; Assistant Attorney General, 
     Civil Division, Department of Justice; Acting Attorney 
     General, United States Department of Justice (DOJ).
       Editorials in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post 
     have called for confirmation of Mr. Keisler calling him a 
     ``moderate conservative'' and ``highly qualified nominee'' 
     who ``certainly warrants confirmation.

       Nominee: Robert Conrad, of NC, to the 4th Circuit (Judicial 
     Emergency); Pending over 220 days.

[[Page S1449]]

       Nominated: July 17, 2007.
       ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified.
       Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Clemson University, 1980; 
     J.D., University of Virginia. 1983.
       Career Highlights: U.S. Attorney, Western District of N.C.; 
     District Judge, District Court for the Western District of 
     N.C.; Chief Judge, Western District of N.C.
       An editorial in The Charlotte Observer stated that it is 
     ``outrageous'' that the Judiciary Committee has not held a 
     hearing for Judge Conrad, calling him a ``well-qualified 
     judge who only three years ago received unanimous Senate 
     confirmation'' and who ``was appointed by Democratic Attorney 
     General Janet Reno to head the Justice Department's Campaign 
     Finance Task Force.''

       Nominee: Steve A. Matthews, of SC, to the 4th Circuit; 
     Pending over 170 days.
       Nominated: September 6, 2007.
       ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Qualified, Minority Not 
     Qualified.
       Education: B.A., University of South Carolina, 1977; J.D., 
     Yale Law School, 1980.
       Career Highlights: Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil 
     Division, DOJ; Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of 
     Legal Policy. DOJ; Managing Director, Haynsworth Sinkler 
     Boyd, P.A.
       Nominee: Catharina Haynes, of TX, to the 5th Circuit 
     (Judicial Emergency); Pending over 220 days. Nominated: July 
     17, 2007; Hearing February 21, 2008. ABA Rating: Unanimous 
     Well Qualified. Education: B.S., with highest honors, first 
     in her class, Florida Institute of Technology, 1983; J.D., 
     with distinction, order of the coif, Emory University School 
     of Law. 1986.
       Career Highlights: Partner, Baker Botts, LLP; Judge, State 
     of Texas, Dallas County, 191st District Court, Dallas, TX; 
     Partner, Baker Botts, LLP.

       Nominee: Rod Rosenstein, of MD, to the 4th Circuit 
     (Judicial Emergency); Pending over 100 days. Nominated: 
     November 15, 2007. ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified. 
     Education: B.S., summa cum laude, University of Pennsylvania, 
     1986; J.D., cum laude, Harvard Law School, 1989.
       Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge Douglas Ginsburg, D.C. 
     Circuit; Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General, 
     (Criminal Division, DOJ; Associate Independent Counsel, 
     Office of the Independent Counsel; Principal Deputy Assistant 
     Attorney General, Tax Division, DOJ; U.S. Attorney, U.S. 
     Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland.
       Two editorials in the Washington Post urged Senate 
     confirmation of Mr. Rosenstein and one stated ``blocking Mr. 
     Rosenstein's confirmation hearing . . . would elevate 
     ideology and ego above substance and merit, and it would 
     unfairly penalize a man who people on both sides of this 
     question agree is well qualified for a judgeship.''

       Nominee: Stephen Murphy, of MI, to the 6th Circuit 
     (Judicial Emergency); Pending over 1100 days. Nominated: 
     February 17, 2005; Renominated June 28, 2006; Renominated 
     March 19, 2007. ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well 
     Qualified, Minority Qualified. Education: B.S., Marquette 
     University, 1984; J.D., St. Louis University, 1987.
       Career Highlights: Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's 
     Office for the E.D. of Michigan; Attorney, General Motors; 
     U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern 
     District of Michigan.

       Nominee: Raymond Kethledge, of MI, to the 6th Circuit 
     (Judicial Emergency); Pending over 600 days.
       Nominated: June 28, 2006; Renominated March 19, 2007. ABA 
     Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority 
     Qualified. Education: B.A., University of Michigan, 1989; 
     J.D., University of Michigan Law School, 1993.
       Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, 
     U.S. Supreme Court; Counsel, Senator Spencer Abraham, U.S. 
     Senate Judiciary Committee; Partner, Bush Seyferth Kethledge 
     & Paige.

       Nominee: William Smith, of RI, to the 1st Circuit (Judicial 
     Emergency); Pending over 80 days. Nominated: December 7, 
     2007. ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified, 
     Minority Qualified. Education: B.A., Georgetown University 
     Law Center, 1982.
       Career Highlights: Counsel/Partner, Edwards & Angell, LLP; 
     Staff Director, Senator Lincoln Chafee; District Judge, 
     District of Rhode Island.

       Nominee: Shalom Stone, of NJ, to the 3rd Circuit (Judicial 
     Emergency); Pending over 220 days. Nominated: July 18, 2007. 
     ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Qualified, Minority Well 
     Qualified. Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Yeshiva College; 
     J.D., cum laude, New York University School of Law. Career 
     Highlights: Associate, Sills, Cummis, Tischman, Epstein & 
     Gross; Member, Walder Hayden & Brogan, P.A.

       Nominee: Gene Pratter, of PA, to the 3rd Circuit; Pending 
     over 100 days. Nominated: November 15, 2007. ABA Rating: 
     Unanimous Well Qualified. Education: A.B., Stanford 
     University, 1971; J.D., University of Pennsylvania Law 
     School, 1975.
       Career Highlights: Partner, Duane Morris, LLP, District 
     Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


                        District Court Nominees

       Nominee: Thomas A. Farr, of NC, to the Eastern District of 
     North Carolina (Judicial Emergency). Nominated: December 7, 
     2006. ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified. Education: B.A., 
     summa cum laude, co-salutatorian, Hillsdale College, 1976; 
     J.D., Emory University School of Law, 1979; L.L.M., 
     Georgetown University School of Law, 1982.
       Career Highlights: Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on Labor 
     and Human Resources; Staff Attorney, Office of Personnel 
     Management; Law Clerk, Judge Frank W. Bullock, Jr., U.S. 
     District Court for the M.D. of NC; Adjunct Professor, 
     Campbell University School of Law.

       Nominee: James R. Hall, to the Southern District of Georgia 
     (Judicial Emergency).
       Nominated: March 19, 2007; Hearing Feb. 12, 2008; Scheduled 
     for markup Feb. 28, 2008.
       ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority 
     Qualified.
       Education: B.A., Augusta College, 1979; J.D., University of 
     Georgia Law School, 1982.
       Career Highlights: Partner, Avrett & Hall; Corporate Vice 
     President & General Counsel, Bankers First Corporation; 22nd 
     District State Senator, Georgia State Senate; Partner, 
     Warrick, Tritt, Stebbins & Hall.

       Nominee: Gustavus Adolphus Puryear, of TN, to the Middle 
     District of Tennessee.
       Nominated: June 13, 2007; Hearing February 12, 2008.
       ABA Rating: Unanimously Qualified.
       Education: B.A., with highest honors, Emory University, 
     1990; J.D., with honors, University of North Carolina School 
     of Law, 1993.
       Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge Rhesa Hawkins 
     Barksdale, Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir.; Legislative 
     Director, Office of U.S. Senator Bill Frist; Executive VP, 
     General Counsel & Secretary, Corrections Corporation of 
     America.

       Nominee: Brian Stacy Miller, of AR, to the Eastern District 
     of Arkansas.
       Nominated: October 16, 2007; Hearing February 12, 2008; 
     Markup February 28, 2008.
       ABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified.
       Education: B.S., with honors, University of Central 
     Arkansas, 1992; J.D., Vanderbilt Law School, 1995.
       Career Highlights: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Arkansas 
     Prosecuting Attorney's Office; Judge, Arkansas Court of 
     Appeals (current).

       Nominee: John A. Mendez, of CA, to the Eastern District of 
     California (Judicial Emergency).
       Nominated: Sept. 6, 2007; Hearing February 21, 2008.
       ABA Rating: Substantial majority Well Qualified, minority 
     Qualified.
       Education: B.A., with distinction, Stanford University, 
     1977; J.D., Harvard Law School, 1980.
       Career Highlights: United States Attorney, United States 
     Attorney's Office for the N.D. of CA; Shareholder, Somach, 
     Simmons & Dunn; Judge, Sacramento County Superior Court.

       Nominee: Richard H. Honaker, of WY, to the District of 
     Wyoming.
       Nominated: June 29, 2006; Hearing February 12, 2008.
       ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified.
       Education: B.A., Harvard College, cum laude, 1973; J.D., 
     University of Wyoming College of Law, John J. Bugas 
     Scholarship, 1976.
       Career Highlights: State Public Defender, State of Wyoming; 
     Member, Wyoming House of Representatives, 1987-1993; Partner, 
     Honaker, Hampton & Newman.

       Nominee: Lincoln D. Almond, of RI, to the District of Rhode 
     Island.
       Nominated: November 15, 2007.
       ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified.
       Education: B.S., University of Rhode Island, 1985; J.D., 
     with High Honors, University of Connecticut School of Law, 
     1988; Notes/Comments Editor, Connecticut Law Review.
       Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge Peter C. Dorsey, 
     District Court for the District of Connecticut; Partner, 
     Edwards & Angell, LLP; Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court 
     for the District of Rhode Island.

       Nominee: Mark S. Davis, of VA, to the Eastern District of 
     Virginia.
       Nominated: November 15, 2007.
       ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified.
       Education: B.A., University of Virginia, 1984; J.D., 
     Washington and Lee University School of Law, 1988.
       Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge John A. MacKenzie, U.S. 
     District Court for the E.D. of VA; Partner, McGuire Woods 
     LLP; Partner, Carr & Porter, LLC; State Court Judge, Third 
     Judicial Circuit of Virginia.

       Nominee: David J. Novak, of VA, to the Eastern District of 
     Virginia.
       Nominated: November 15, 2007.
       ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority 
     Qualified.
       Education: B.S., magna cum laude, St. Vincent College, 
     1983; J.D., Villanova University Law School, 1986.
       Career Highlights: Assistant District Attorney; 
     Philadelphia District Attorney's Office; Trial Attorney, 
     Criminal Division, DOJ; Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. 
     Attorney's Office for the S.D. of Texas; Assistant U.S. 
     Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office for the E.D. of Virginia.

       Nominee: William J. Powell, of WV, to the Northern District 
     of West Virginia.
       Nominated: May 24, 2007.
       ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority 
     qualified, 1 abstention.
       Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Salem College, 1982; 
     J.D., West Virginia College of Law, 1985.
       Career Highlights: Assistant United States Attorney, 
     Southern District of WV; Member, Jackson Kelly, PLLC.

       Nominee: David R. Dugas, of LA, to the Middle District of 
     Louisiana.
       Nominated: March 19, 2007.

[[Page S1450]]

       ABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified.
       Education: Cadet, United States Air Force Academy, 1973; 
     J.D., Louisiana State University Law Center, 1978.
       Career Highlights: Partner, Caffery, Oubre, Dugas & 
     Campbell, L.L.P.; United States Attorney, Middle District of 
     Louisiana (current); Exec. Director, Hurricane Katrina Fraud 
     Task Force Joint Command Center.

       Nominee: Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr., of MO, to the Eastern 
     District of Missouri.
       Nominated: December 6, 2007.
       ABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified.
       Education: B.A., Southern Methodist University, 1973; J.D., 
     Southern Methodist University School of Law, 1976; Master of 
     Laws in the Judicial Process, UVA School of Law, 1998.
       Career Highlights: Circuit Judge: 32nd Judicial Circuit of 
     Missouri; Supreme Court Judge, Supreme Court of Missouri; 
     Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Missouri.

       Nominee: David Gregory Kays, of MO, to the Western District 
     of Missouri.
       Nominated: Nov. 15, 2007.
       ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Qualified/Minority Not 
     Qualified.
       Education: B.S., Southwest Missouri State University, 1985; 
     J.D., University of Arkansas School of Law, 1988.
       Career Highlights: Prosecutor, Laclede County Prosecuting 
     Attorney's Office; Associate Circuit Judge, Laclede County 
     Circuit Court; Presiding Circuit Court Judge, Twenty-Sixth 
     Judicial District.

       Nominee: James Edward Rogan, of CA, to the Central District 
     of California (Judicial Emergency).
       Nominated: January 9, 2007.
       ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified/Minority 
     Qualified.
       Education: B.A., University of California at Berkeley, 
     1979; J.D., University of California Los Angeles School of 
     Law, 1983.
       Career Highlights: Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles 
     County District Attorney's Office; Judge, Glendale Municipal 
     Court; Member, California State Assembly; Member, United 
     States House of Representatives; Judge, California Superior 
     Court.

       Nominee: William T. Lawrence, of IN, to the Southern 
     District of Indiana (Judicial Emergency).
       Nominated: February 15, 2008.
       ABA Rating: Not yet rated.
       Education: B.A., Indiana University, 1970; J.D., Indiana 
     University School of Law-Indianapolis, 1973.
       Career Highlights: Public Defender (Part-time), Marion 
     County Superior Court, Criminal Division; Master Commissioner 
     (part-time), Marion County Circuit Court; Judge, Marion 
     County Circuit Court; Magistrate Judge, District Court for 
     the Southern District of Indiana (current).

       Nominee: G. Murray Snow, of AZ, to the District of Arizona.
       Nominated: Dec. 11, 2007.
       ABA Rating: Not yet rated.
       Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Brigham Young University, 
     1984; J.D., magna cum laude, J. Reuben Clark Law School, 
     Brigham Young University, 1987.
       Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge Stephen H. Anderson, 
     Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals; Member, Meyer, Hendricks, 
     Victor, Osborn & Maledon, P.A.; Judge, Arizona Court of 
     Appeals.

       Nominee: Glenn T. Suddaby, of NY, to the Northern District 
     of New York.
       Nominated: December 11, 2007.
       ABA Rating: Not yet rated.
       Education: B.A., State University of New York at 
     Plattsburgh, 1980; J.D., Syracuse University College of Law, 
     1985.
       Career Highlights: Assistant District Attorney, Onondaga 
     County District Attorney's Office; First Chief Assist, 
     District Attorney, Onondaga County Dist. Attorney's Office; 
     United States Attorney, Northern District of New York.

       Nominee: Colm Connolly, of DE, to the District of Delaware.
       Nominated: February 26, 2008.
       ABA Rating: Not yet rated.
       Education: B.A., University of Notre Dame; M.Sc., London 
     School of Economics; J.D., Duke University Law School.
       Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge Walter Stapleton, Third 
     Circuit Court of Appeals; Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. 
     Attorney's Office for the District of Delaware; U.S. 
     Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of 
     Delaware.

       It is my hope that we can work together to ensure that all 
     of these nominees receive timely hearings and prompt votes in 
     the Committee.
       In light of my extensive consultation with you in 
     scheduling the hearings for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice 
     Alito, as well as our collaboration on numerous other 
     Committee hearings, I was surprised when you scheduled a 
     hearing for Judge Catharina Haynes on February 21st during 
     the recess. I know you offered to postpone that hearing for a 
     relatively brief period of time, but a formal, written 
     request for a postponement would only have provided more 
     grist for the argument mill on these issues. I was prepared 
     to cancel my previously scheduled work in Pennsylvania to 
     attend the Haynes hearing until Senator John Warner, who was 
     in Washington, agreed to attend.
       Given the uncertainty of who the next President will be, 
     now would be a good time to change the confirmation process 
     to guarantee prompt action on nominees with up-or-down votes. 
     I again urge you to work for me to establish a schedule for 
     prompt consideration of all currently pending judicial 
     nominees and ensure they receive up-or-down votes in 
     Committee and on the Senate floor. I have shared this letter 
     with the other Republican members of the Committee.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arlen Specter.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to commend the ranking member of 
the Judiciary Committee for his comments, which I first watched from my 
office and then came to the floor.
  I can recall, and I believe the Senator from Pennsylvania mentioned 
this, the Berzon and Paez nominations at the end of the Clinton 
administration, where there was a lot of discontent on the Republican 
side of the aisle--strong feeling that these nominees were 
ideologically unacceptable. I remember then-majority leader in the 
Senate, Senator Lott, saying: We don't want to set the precedent that 
the ideological leanings of these nominees will deny them an up-or-down 
vote.
  I, similar to Senator Specter and Senator Lott, voted for cloture on 
those nominations, not to kill them but to move them forward. It was a 
very important decision on the part of then-Majority Leader Lott to 
prevent, to the maximum extent possible, the kind of meltdown that 
seems to have occurred in this Congress to which Senator Specter was 
referring.
  At the beginning of this Congress, the majority leader, Senator Reid, 
and I discussed the need for the Senate to have a fair, less-
contentious confirmation process. To his credit, I think that is his 
view and his goal. We have made some progress on circuit court 
nominations last year. We didn't match President Clinton's number from 
the first session of his last Congress, but we came close. Now, we had 
one notable bump along the way and Senator Specter referred to that and 
that was the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick. But we were able to 
get him through, thanks to, as Senator Specter pointed out, the 
courageous decision on the part of particularly one Senator on the 
other side. It was good for the institution that we did that.
  Unfortunately, the prospect of turning the page on judicial 
nominations, a goal which I think all but the hardiest partisans share, 
has taken a wrong turn. Despite the best efforts of Senator Specter and 
others, progress has all but ground to a halt. There have been no--I 
repeat, no--judicial confirmations so far this year--not one. There has 
been only one hearing on a circuit court nominee since September of 
last year.
  Let me say that again. So far this year, the second session of the 
110th Congress, not a single judicial confirmation--not one. With 
regard to circuit court nominees, only one hearing since September of 
last year.
  It is puzzling why progress has almost totally stopped. Some like to 
blame the President, but as the ranking member, Senator Specter, has 
noted, there are several circuit court nominees who have been pending 
for hundreds of days who have yet to receive a simple hearing--a 
hearing--let alone a committee or floor vote. In addition, many of 
these nominees satisfy most or all the chairman's specific criteria for 
prompt consideration. They have strong home State support--check the 
box on that--they fill judicial emergencies, and they have good or 
outstanding ABA ratings.
  All these nominees Senator Specter referred to meet all those 
criteria. So it is puzzling why it is taking so long to move them. I 
hope the committee is not slow-walking these nominees based upon 
decade-old grievances, both real and imagined. That might be 
emotionally satisfying, but it will set a precedent that will serve us 
ill, regardless of who is in the White House and which party controls 
the Senate next year.
  So I would hope our Democratic colleagues resist the desire by some 
to drag us into the judicial confirmation brinkmanship and establish a 
precedent they will regret. I hope they will treat these nominees 
fairly, before it is too late.
  Again, I wish to particularly commend Senator Specter, our Republican 
leader on the Judiciary Committee, for pointing this out. He has 
excellent credentials to make this point because he made similar 
arguments when there was a Republican Senate and a Democratic President 
when he felt Members on our side of the aisle were being dilatory in 
providing fair consideration.

[[Page S1451]]

  We know what the standard is. Each of the last three Presidents have 
ended their tenures in office with the opposite party in control of the 
Senate. We know that.
  We know that the average number of circuit court judges appointed in 
the last 2 years of each of these three Presidents, when the opposite 
party controlled the Senate, was 17. We know the low end of that was 
President Clinton with 15. Right now, we have six. Even meeting the low 
threshold of President Clinton is a long way away.
  Senator Specter has pointed out a way to meet that standard by 
reporting out of committee and confirming people who meet all of the 
criteria that have been specified by the chairman of the committee.
  I commend Senator Specter for his comments. I hope they will be 
heeded by people on both sides of the aisle here in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, what is our status right now on the floor? 
Are we still in morning business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are still in morning business.
  Mr. PRYOR. Do we have any time remaining in morning business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority has 6 minutes 52 
seconds.
  Mr. PRYOR. I ask unanimous consent to yield back that time.

                          ____________________